***  WORLD NEWS  ***

&

OUR GUIDE'S BOOKS 

SCROLL DOWN FOR WORLD NEWS HEADLINES

Adrian's writing is found on the book shelves of some discerning people on both sides of the Atlantic.

 Both Dick Nesbitt-Dufort and Adrian Hill are published authors. Dick's father wrote a book about his experiences as a special operations pilot flying agents into Occupied France. Dick has edited and produced the memoirs of a soldier during the Napoleonic Wars. Adrian has written novels about espionage set in South Korea and Switzerland and remains the only British diplomat to have written part of the history of the US Department of State. When not organising sky tours he's working on a novel set during the height of the Vietnam War.

These books are on sale through Parapress based in Tunbridge Wells.

Parapress

For those interested in the Vietnam War copies of  'Escape with Honor' written together by Ambassador Francis ' Terry ' McNamara and Adrian may be found via this link to the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training in Washington DC.

***

When Adrian Hill served as a diplomat one of his most rewarding jobs was Director of British Information Services across Canada. At one stage he gave Britain's messages across the United States as well. Apart from network and local television and radio broadcasts a key part of his job was to brief and often write editorials for the hundreds of newspapers across North America, concentrating on foreign news. Most newspapers in North America view the World from a continent which could get along comfortably without anyone else - and the US/Canadian border is a surprising obstacle. Henry Ginsberg of the New York Times once challenged Adrian to find any Canadian news in his own paper. At that time Henry was their correspondent in Ottawa - he returned to New York City as the Foreign Editor and the Canadians featured more often!

Adrian's editorial contributions with a British slant proved highly popular right across North America so alongside these touring and history pages we opened this editorial page. Here we try to bring some historical perspective to the latest political and military events around the World. Military experience as a paratrooper came in handy as a diplomat. Adrian knows Afghanistan, Pakistan and India from his very first overseas posting as a diplomat serving at the British Deputy High Commission in Lahore and subsequent return visits. His career took in Cyprus and the Near East, Vietnam, Northern Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea and Jamaica and most places along the flight path.

This news page has a complimentary purpose. Although this website is about our tours we also try to promote the heritage of the Atlantic Charter and the Special Relationship. The United Nations and NATO owe their existence to the Atlantic Charter, unique among treaties in that there were no signatures, just messages to their respective cabinets from Churchill and Roosevelt on board a battleship and a cruiser anchored off Newfoundland - plus mutual trust at a time of great danger for the democracies.

Updates will occur when the news makes one worthwhile. Articles on British defence matters are very much works in progress and frequently edited, improved, modified to reflect new conversations and fresh information. All views expressed are personal reflections based on talking to people involved in events and over thirty years military and diplomatic service in the world's hot spots including three wars.

Adrian Hill

************

WORLD NEWS HEADLINES

*

THE MORNING AFTER

BRITAIN'S MOST EXPERIENCED POLITICAL LEADER...

PRESENTLY SERVED BY AN APPALLINGLY IGNORANT PRIME MINISTER

Her Majesty has my sympathy. Our royal Grand Mama now must bring up a government of schoolboys. Perhaps, Maam, some history lessons during the summer hols would make a start although a lot of swotting lies ahead.

David Cameron revealed his shocking ignorance of history, not once but twice, giving television interviews during his visit to Washington. For a young man who claims Winston Churchill as his hero, Cameron left little room for doubt that he has never read a book about the grand old man, nor indeed his most legendary speech.

' Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.'

Churchill hurled this challenge to the House of Commons on the 18 June 1940 during what is known as the Norway debate - evacuation from a disaster in Norway ended several days after Dunkirk although fighting continued in western France. The original manuscript is held at the Churchill Archives at Churchill College Cambridge where the senior staff very kindly escort our visitors. You can see the red ink edits that Churchill made just before and while delivering the speech.

Cameron actually thought that America was the senior partner in World War Two during 1940. This is nonsense. And doubly appalling - profound ignorance reveals intellectual idleness - for a British Prime Minister speaking on television to our closest ally, on our behalf.

America desperately tried to keep out of the second world war - which started with the invasion of Poland in September 1939 in case Cameron was asleep during that lesson for GCSE history - and only President Roosevelt's political skill ensured that supplies crossed the Atlantic following the fall of France in summer 1940. Britain fought on alone for another year until Hitler's invasion of Russia brought an unlikely ally.

America entered the war on the 7 December 1941 when a Japanese aircraft carrier force, without any warning, struck Pearl Harbour in Hawaii. On that day of infamy as Roosevelt called it, the British Empire and Commonwealth had been fighting for nearly two and a half years.

More about these perilous events can be found via the links at the bottom of this page.

Once a week, when both are in London, the Prime Minister has an audience with Queen. Had she been asked, I'm sure Her Majesty, who lived through those dangerous years, would have saved her Prime Minister from making a fool of himself.

*

The clumsiest gaffe came during a speech in Bangalore when Cameron delivered yet another cheap shot - this time at Pakistan next door, whose President's wife was murdered by terrorists. Whatever the facts, India was the last place for a complaint that should have been made in private in Islamabad. We knew already the Pakistan ISI are a law unto themselves - their chief decides whether or not to visit Britain regardless of what his President does. No new intelligence there - a private message could have been much tougher and warned Zadari that we will start destroying the ISI person by person until they stop funding and directing the Taliban's war against NATO including fat rewards for killing our soldiers. In private you can also tell Zadari that we could send the drones over Islamabad.

Add this diplomatic blunder to Osborne making war through the media on Liam Fox, Francis Maude blathering cheap shots against the Civil Service - boy, do we have a government of schoolboys - and Cameron voicing a wish that families should be thrown out of their council houses. While the Liberals are happy to see the nuclear deterrent under threat, council houses are another matter. Neither idea was in the Conservative election manifesto therefore Cameron and Osborne have no mandate for either gamble. I would make them all wear short trousers until they grow up.

A far better solution is to copy the Swiss - a democracy for 800 years - and remove all important decisions from the national parliament. Long ago the Swiss recognised that the best people go into business and industry, politicians represent the average person. Nobody wants important national decisions taken by average people. So the shrewd Swiss ensure that important decisions are decided by popular vote after all interested parties have put their case to the voters. This is democracy. Moreover, democracy at local, canton and national levels. Now our MPs will argue that it's expensive. MPs enjoy a Parliamentary dictatorship. While the mechanics are labour intensive the money saved by not making the same stupid mistakes is why Switzerland is a very wealthy country.

*

A respected think tank has pronounced that the new coalition's first budget takes the most money from low income families and pensioners though the least money from high income earners with no children - why is anyone surprised?

Notting Hill is deciding how much the nation should pay to keep our bankers in a comfortable life style.

* 

CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL PARTIES MAKE BRITAIN DEFENCELESS AGAINST MAJOR POWERS 

The taxpaying public did not vote for a coalition of liberal luvvies from Notting Hill. We did vote - well I didn't - for a capable government including a wise defence minister and a similarly gifted Foreign Secretary. Liam Fox, Defence Secretary, spoke well before the House of Commons Select Committee of Defence. They were impressed. The Jury is still out regarding William Hague as Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

The crunch will come this autumn. Early storm warnings already expose George Osborne, the Chancellor, trying to slash defence by 30% through passing the bill for the next generation of strategic missile submarines to the Royal Navy. Until now, building these submarines has always fallen to the Treasury as a special budget. The budgets for Diplomacy and Defence should grow, not shrink further, given that both departments have been starved of cash for three decades. Slashing either budget is absurd and would reveal Cameron and Osborne as quite inadequate for their jobs.

Osborne and Fox squabble through the media. Cameron should bang their heads together or sack Osborne. Why? Because Osborne displays all the traits of a weak man who dare not give way in case he loses authority rather than showing himself big enough to admit when he is wrong. Osborne genuinely thinks aircraft carriers do not need planes. One hopes he will provoke rebellion by the bulk of the Tory Party in Parliament and bring down this incompetent clique. Nick Clegg is on the sidelines in this row, his party window dressing to prop up Cameron's government. There is plenty of fat in the Health and Social Services budgets, also local government, not to mention overseas aid which should return to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's control.

Liam Fox told the committee that he supports restoring national economic strength while recognising that despite spending billions on intelligence, none of Britain's recent wars and conflicts were predicted - the only safe option is maintaining balanced forces able to deal with the completely unexpected. So far so good, but it's all words. The real test comes when Fox has to lay his cards on the table and show the public what he regards as balanced forces.

Ridiculous arguments are offered - in all seriousness - against this posture. I give only one example - the ritual claim that there have been no wars between states for the previous half century and future wars are more likely in Africa where most occur now and will resemble Afghanistan. Obviously the claim about wars between states is nonsense. The correct argument is that no war occurred between NATO and the Warsaw Pact although three wars have occurred in former communist countries. However, the reason for peace was deterrence through nuclear missiles and strong, balanced conventional forces. The latter deter major conflicts while remaining available for small ones.

There must be a whole hive of retired generals typing away, lunching reporters, because one reads this foolish lexicon quite often in the press. However, the mass tunnel vision over Afghanistan reminds of generals in the First World War, obsessed by the drubbing from the Boers, condemning virtually the entire field Army to man trenches along the Western Front, incapable of exploiting the tank, sending thousands to pointless deaths week after week. By preaching that future wars will resemble Afghanistan, once again British generals become slaves of the enemy's tactics and strategy, revealing complete lack of imagination. There are other ways of dealing with insurgency, none suit the insurgents. 

Personally, I have no confidence in Cameron's government, already they're making too many mistakes. I do think the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force should make the voters understand that the reason they build ships and aircraft with the latest technology is that the South Atlantic War taught a forgotten lesson - cheap and cheerful ships are quickly sunk and obsolete aircraft just as speedily shot down. Moreover, young people join the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force because neither are part of the Army. How the generals imagine they can take over the amphibious warfare fleet defies common sense.

Mutterings from the horse-trading warn that the generals have sold the Fox their pup. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force will become history as fighting forces along with our national safety. The latest scheme is to remove the RAF's strike fighters and thereby the reason for independent air forces since the 23 April 1918. Again, how the generals imagine the voters will pay for endless small ground wars, defies any sense.

The generals still have not worked out why voters do not believe the human cost of these wars in dead and permanently disabled is worthwhile. Nor why the voters give so generously to armed forces charities but do not support these far-flung wars. The people will support overseas intervention when it makes sense to them - look at the surge of patriotism during the liberation of the Falkland Islanders nearly thirty years ago.

Today's coalition of schoolboys want to ignore the lessons from the Falkland Islands and every previous war. Half a navy and half an air force are no defence though will cost at least £ 20 billions a year. A smaller army backed by a skeleton navy and air force becomes a very expensive liability. It will land in trouble and Ministers won't have any means to send a rescue party. Invading Iraq from Kuwait with supply by sea was easier than invading from Turkey with a long land supply line. But the Cameron coalition will scrap the Royal Navy and show no interest in the Merchant Navy. Human cost of their gambling? Probably national catastrophe. Money? Probably £ 15 - 20 billions a year on an Army with no naval or air support. Thus half a defence, although no defence at all, costs £ 40 billions a year.

Rather than deceive the voters with a facade of defence, rather than send young volunteers as cannon fodder to succour political and military egos, better that Fox tells Cameron to disband all three armed services and straight away £ 45 billions are shaved off the government's annual bill - because we'll no longer spend £ 5 billions a year in Afghanistan.

Nor will bribes make us safe, thus the overseas aid programme can go as well, saving a further £ 9 billions a year. That leaves the British population defenceless though costs nothing while saving the Treasury £ 54 billions a year.

   The same logic applies to HM Diplomatic Service. No good William Hague giving ambitious speeches when the government refuses to support the diplomatic service politically or financially. The Prime Minister is guilty of the nastiest cheap shots at our diplomats. More on this lower down. David Cameron should wake up. Our allies are under no obligation to defend our worldwide interests nor these islands.

Instead I want to see a plan that recognises the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force need more spent on capital equipment while the Army - whose cost is manpower - switches to a core which deploys formed units from a much larger volunteer reserve. This would give the Armed Forces the strength in depth presently so lacking. It would be good for the country and good for both high technology and engineering industry. If I don't see a plan on those lines, then Liam Fox joins Cameron, Osborne and Clegg as yet another member of a pretty though shallow political generation.

When is the benchmark test? This autumn. Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, William Hague, even stand alongside Fox when the crunch comes around the table at Chequers or 10 Downing Street? Most people who voted Conservative at the last Election did so to remove Gordon Brown and his pay-roll vote, that over-bearing army of the nanny state. The price was David Cameron and George Osborne whom the voters trusted less and less as the Election drew closer. None expected to have Clegg and his Liberals as part of the deal. The honeymoon ends astonishingly fast. Opinion polls show the Liberal Democrat vote down 40% since the coalition formed. Voters recognise that Alistair Darling was not such a bad Chancellor after all. Better news about the economy is attributed to the previous government plus the steady hand of the Bank of England's Governor. Voters now fear destruction of the recovery for the sake of Tory doctrine and Liberal back room deals.

 Though never intended, Cameron and his coalition have managed to make Labour a viable party again within a dozen weeks of an election defeat. That's much more healthy for British politics.  

*

Neither coalition party gave our diplomatic effort more than a passing mention during the election campaign. There are two serious problems confronting British diplomats. One is that the Treasury no longer cushions the Diplomatic Service from swings in the value of the pound. You cannot run foreign policy on a ' See you again next year, Mister President - so long as the pound comes back up.' This has caused a huge shrinkage in our diplomatic interface with the modern world. We have closed offices all over Europe and North America which were extremely important for political and commercial intelligence plus export promotion.

This has an adverse effect on our diplomacy world wide. Many small embassies are down to less than a handful of UK staff and spread so thinly on the ground that the embassy no longer functions effectively and becomes almost invisible. All posts rely on capable, loyal local staff but they are only as good as the UK staff they support. About five years ago I was saddened to find so many promising and experienced young officers - that I knew - quitting the Royal Navy and the Army because they could not see a decent career ahead. These were people whose next move was command of a ship or regiment. Now I meet the same kind of young people quitting HM Diplomatic Service.

The second problem - mistake - is that overseas aid is run by a separate government ministry. The aid programme has become a sacred cow which eats into money that could go on diplomacy and defence. There's not much point creating fancy new titles such as National Security Adviser unless all the budgets for intelligence, diplomacy, defence and overseas aid are pooled together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary firmly in charge.

Meanwhile the new government has ' begun ' a defence review - already written by a retired general - without the obvious first step of determining foreign policy.

William Hague appears content to carry on with the muddle and lack of resources that dogs Britain's diplomats. Aid will continue to thrive as a sacred cow undermining the national interest and HM Diplomatic Service. I predict serious differences between the FCO's fans in public life and Cameron's claque in the Cabinet. 

*

DIPLOMACY AND DEFENCE FEEDBACK

Over a year ago these pages offered a sitrep on the state of Britain's armed forces and a self-evident lack of judgement among senior generals in the Army. More about all this below and at WORLD NEWS TWO - there is a link at the bottom of this page - including my humble opinion that the insertion of 16 Air Assault Brigade into Helmand inevitably turned into a slow motion Dien Bien Phu.

I am told that young people were puzzled by Dien Bien Phu - have a look at page three of AIRBORNE FORCES via this link. I also recommend reading the classic account by Bernard Fall - Hell in a very small place.'

Another reprimand was over rants about combat 40 years ago. That's the point. Manoeuvre fighting changed during the Vietnam War. We flew in Chinooks and Hercules forty years ago. We deployed insertions with Hueys and called in Huey and Cobra gunships. Fighters launched smart weapons forty years ago. There were no British soldiers anywhere in sight forty years ago in Vietnam. 

Why does a former parachute engineer rant about our generals? For over 1000 years this country's defence has been built upon sea power. When King Harold dispersed the fleet in late summer 1066 he left open the Channel for William the Conqueror. When Charles 11 neglected the fleet, the Dutch sailed up the River Medway and burnt the flag ship. Sea power kept Napoleon staring at the white cliffs across the Channel. Allowed the British Expeditionary Force to cross the other way in 1914 and eventually 60 divisions to fight during nearly four years. Sea power saved us from starvation between 1939 and late 1943 and made the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy and Normandy possible with fleets drawn mostly from the Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy while the US Navy bore the lion's share of the Pacific War, leap frogging the Japanese held islands. McArthur used the same tactic at Inchon during the Korean War. No modern military operation by the UK could take place but for the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy. We rely on energy, raw materials from all corners of the Globe. We export to virtually every country that exists and most have coastlines. Without sea trade moving freely over the oceans we will sink into catastrophe. In a crisis, we're on our own, such is the lesson history. We neglect the Royal Navy at our peril.

*

America's armed forces enjoy a fine tradition of openness towards new ideas from any quarter - including civilians - often from places beyond the United States. This continued throughout the Vietnam War. A few years after the Vietnam War the Commanding General of the 82 Airborne Division, Sandy Molloy, asked me to spend some time with the division and look at their methods of doing business from strategy to tactics. Several changes resulted. Some of the ideas eventually were published in the RUSI Journal. Tell me any other armed forces in the World that are so open to new ideas? General David Petraeus and many others continue this tradition.

KHAKI BLINKERS

Some of our generals have been making a lot of noise lately. Not all, but too many. Several have involved themselves in party politics behind the backs of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, not to mention a much larger number of Army officers who, still serving or retired, do not share their opinions.

*

Sir David Richards talks about a ' tanks for horses ' moment. He's about 45 years behind those of us who served in Vietnam although, regretfully, in the case of Britain's Army he is right. British generals always find change a struggle. During the nineteenth century they resisted the abolition of flogging. The generals staunchly opposed the great reforms that laid the foundations of Kitchener's citizen army during World War One. For much of the first half of the twentieth century they refused to give up their horses for tanks - to the despair of men like Fuller and Liddell-Hart, not to mention Winston Churchill who encouraged the invention of the tank. As Field Marshal Heinz Guderian remarked, we had the greatest tank strategists in the World though fortunately - for the German Army - no tank generals. For the last 40 years Britain's generals steadfastly refused to relinquish their heavy tanks for helicopters.

Modern airmobile tactics were proven and refined during the Vietnam War. Britain was not involved with the Vietnam War. Consequently the US Army - and the Australians and New Zealanders - spent a decade fighting another way. Vietnam demanded all the military and civilian expertise and sigint resources that Sir Richard suggests are needed in future wars. His words reveal how insular our generals remain today. Vietnam was the watershed for airmobile warfare. The war also showed that a guerrilla campaign could not destroy a democratic government, no matter how weak and corrupt, but could pave the way for a conventional invasion once the victim was thoroughly weakened. American soldiers and Marines learnt all the lessons applied today in Afghanistan. The 173 Airborne provided security for the Binh Dinh local elections in 1970 - against a regular NVA division that was a lot tougher than the Taliban. The same duty was carried out by many other US combat formations the length of South Vietnam. Although the US Army needed a dangerous crisis in Iraq and General David Petraeus to prompt a revival of the political techniques they honed in Vietnam, the US Navy and USAAF built upon the military skills and lessons learned. Smart bombs were knocking out NVA tanks in spring 1972, long before Desert Storm. Some 40 years ago I remember the US Marines changing the codes between rifle companies every two hours because the Russian eavesdroppers beyond the DMZ in North Vietnam otherwise would crack their messages. That was long after cyber dawn. Perhaps more revealing for our purposes, General Abe Abrams, US Commander in Vietnam, told me that the great thing about the Australian/New Zealand Task Force was that he could stop worrying about the Province they looked after. Contrast his words with Basra and Helmand today. No matter how professional and courageous - and we do have some very good generals although they're the ones who don't go in for politics - our Army is too small for making a strategic impact, anywhere. Sending another few thousand troops into Afghanistan - General Richards' plan - will make not the slightest difference. Possibly more SAS backed by naval cruise missiles might cross the Iranian border. Not conventional infantry - unless led by Alexander the Great.

Colonel John Waddy - serving forty years ago as the first Colonel Special Forces in the British Army - despaired of the Army leadership over its Cold War tactics and equipment. Little has changed. British generals fought two Gulf Wars with conventional armoured and infantry tactics and now attempt the same in Afghanistan. Demands for better armoured vehicles are the generals' solution, while the grateful enemy simply make more powerful mines. Over the last three years £ 3.5 billions have been spent on Urgent Operational Requirements, purchases of equipment, for Afghanistan. Nearly all that money went on heavier and heavier vehicles rather than grasping the nettle and ordering £ 3.5 billions worth of helicopters and out-flanking the mine layers overnight. The generals allowed the Taliban to keep calling the tactical shots.  The RAF still operate troop carrying helicopters that are regarded as normal for the TO&E of a US brigade. Between June 1940 and May 1943 the defeated and largely unarmed British Army went from not a single paratrooper to raise two airborne divisions with a third forming in India - proving that a completely new form of warfare can go from drawing board to drop zone at astonishing speed given a fair wind. I wonder how much cash Dannatt and Richards requested for language training.

 The planners and operations staff took on a role in Afghanistan without accurate intelligence - I suspect almost without any intelligence. Now our small though redoubtable force, taking pointless casualties because it travels by ground, at least has been relieved by the US Marine Corps with many, many helicopters. British generals serving today were involved with the original stupid decision to insert an isolated brigade. The result was a rather dusty slow motion Dien Bien Phu. Some generals remain desperate to clear their reputations. Why should our troops risk their lives and limbs over a decade for salvaging reputations? If the senior generals cannot see the wood for the trees, nor it seems, does David Cameron. There is no better example of the speed at which a well managed combined operation should swing into action than the Americans' naval, land and air rescue for Haiti from the earthquake and its own government chaos. No power, no water, no government. Without the ships, aircraft, helicopters and ground teams those poor people would rely on penny packets from 40 well meaning countries - who still have great difficulty working together even with powerful American leadership. 

The new Chiefs of the Royal Navy and the RAF assure me that with an extra £ 2.5 billions on the present defence budget all three Services could meet all their operational tasks and purchase all the new ships and aircraft - including helicopters - and land equipment needed for our future safety. At least the Labour Party's defence policy clearly states their intention to build two new aircraft carriers. So, occasionally, do the Liberal Democrats' - leaving only the Conservative khaki cabal in the opposite camp. Labour's original 1998 plan for the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force was a step in the right direction given that we are on the threshold of a series of conflicts between large nations. By that I do not mean world war, rather a period of history similar to the eighteenth century, when conflicts break out between combinations of major states right across the globe for control and ownership of its natural resources. Argentina's latest confrontation over the Falkland Islands provides a good example of what is likely to become the norm for states in financial and political trouble. The 1998 plan left the Navy short of escorts and submarines, the Army without air-portable armour and artillery, the RAF short of strategic airlift but the plan laid solid foundations. The Army's troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan threw a huge spanner in the works. That problem should be solved without damaging the other two Services. Otherwise the current Members of Parliament should admit they don't care if 60 million people are left defenceless against the coming storms so long as the electorate brainlessly vote and ensure the gravy train chugs along regardless.

*

APART FROM BRITAIN'S FUTURE AS A GLOBAL POWER THE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS PROGRAMME PROVIDES 15,000 HIGHLY SKILLED ENGINEERING JOBS

The new aircraft carriers will be the largest warships ever built for the Royal Navy weighing in at 65,000 tons fully loaded and 930 feet long with a wide beam, much closer in size to the US Navy's strike carriers though with only 1300/1400 complement rather than nearly 5000 on a US carrier. The ships will carry an air group of at least 40 fighters and helicopters but given their size one suspects that this number could increase during an emergency. The flight deck has two islands, one for steering the ship and a second for controlling its aircraft. The ski jump bow allows its STOVL fighters to use less fuel and take off while carrying a heavy load. Close defence weapons reflect the lessons from the Falklands War. Over a lifetime of 50 years the ships may increase to 75,000 tons fully loaded as additions are made - such as armour plate on the flight deck and sides - and possibly further deck space added. France plans a single aircraft carrier along the same design though weighing 75,000 tons, presumably its armour and catapults since the ship's length and beam are the same. Although the Conservatives oppose the new carriers, preferring to spend more on overseas aid for third world dictators, there are strong arguments for building a third big aircraft carrier - see article at World News Three. 

Any shade of Government attempting to cancel these powerful warships should be forced to a vote of confidence in Parliament and that Government immediately dismissed.

HMS Richmond, Type 23 Destroyer, firing a Harpoon missile.

Three Type 23s were sold to Chile, all three ships only six years old. These ships should patrol Falklands waters today flying white ensigns. Their design incorporates all the lessons from the 1982 South Atlantic War. Harpoon missiles possess three times the range of the Exocets carried by Argentina's modern destroyers.

GAMBIT OR GAMBLE

Former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, sipping coffee in an Ottawa hotel back in April 1982, told me that during the late 1970s when Argentina previously threatened the Falklands he was offered two naval options - send surface ships rather publicly or send nuclear submarines discreetly. With a canny smile, he added,' I sent both.' 

Jim Callaghan then added, ' When you're on the phone to Downing Street this morning, Adrian, remind the lady who ordered all those ships she's sending south.'

I conveyed his message, diplomatically though clearly.

*

' Double the effort and square the error.'

Sir Robert Thompson describing the worst form of strategy - debating with Adrian over a Chinese meal in wartime Saigon.

THE PRESIDENT'S DILEMMA

For more than a year these pages have stressed that Afghanistan is a colonial war and the sooner NATO - including the voters in NATO countries - grasp this dimension, moreover the concept globally, the better. Afghan's claim they were never conquered and never fail to remind the World of their massacre of a British Raj force in 1839 and their seeing off the Red Army over a hundred years later. They are less inclined to recall that Ranjit Singh, Lion of the Punjab, conquered Afghanistan as did the Moguls before him and the British Raj afterwards. The British Viceroy installed a friendly prince in Kabul - as NATO attempts today - and that dynasty largely kept the peace until the 1973 coup against the King followed six years later by the Russian invasion. President Obama would do well to browse the region's history from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Equally relevant, Britain's Raj controlled the North-West Frontier and drew on the whole sub-continent for the Indian Army. The Frontier Scouts wore traditional local dress and by and large, still do today. That helps acceptance by the frontier tribes. The officers were British and all NCOs and soldiers from the frontier tribes. Political decisions were taken by stiff-upper-lipped graduates from Cambridge and Oxford who had read anything from Classics to Organ Music and generally were beyond corruption. Today General David Petraeus must weave a path through the World champions of venous and slippery leadership on both sides of the Durrand Line.

So long as the people of the region believe that NATO will go home without finishing the job, everyone hedges their bets, most of all Pakistan's intelligence service and many of her politicians who play a double game - taking money from America, buying arms to keep out India's huge army, while directing terrorism against NATO soldiers. This cannot go on without paying an appropriate price.

Add the latest catastrophe - huge monsoon floods - and the foundations of Pakistan begin to wobble. 

The President and US voters want their troops out - from the region - while clear warning signs demand they stay longer. Afghanistan requires a shift towards a small number of NATO experts guiding largely local forces, backed by plenty of air power in the broadest sense. Such a long term strategy encourages trust among the local tribes. Otherwise, we're back to Bob Thompson's warning, some forty years ago.......

The President's dilemma is how to square the circle between David Petraeus's caution over the scope for troop withdrawals next year and a shift towards a longer term strategy - such as the one described above - without appearing to have followed bad advice or over-ruled sound advice, from the start.

*

The Special Relationship

USS Winston Churchill making an emergency break away from the USS Harry S Truman. She is the only ship in the US Navy permanently assigned a Royal Navy officer - she flies the Stars and Stripes and the White Ensign. Escorting astern of the carrier and her support ship is HMS Manchester. Clicking this photo leads straight to how the Special Relationship began.

*

HMS Daring - photo Royal Navy and BAE

***************

* My opposite number on economics in the US Embassy was Chris Hill, recently appointed by President Obama as Ambassador to Iraq. My wife and Pattie Hill became great friends, indeed Pattie persuaded the American Women's Club to donate generously to a cause Regine sponsored for treating Korean cerebral palsied babies. The Koreans, bless them, could never quite fathom how two diplomats, one in the US Embassy and the other in the British Embassy, shared the same name although they had their suspicions. Aware how the Koreans do business, we hit on the only plausible explanation, and independently told any Korean who asked that I was Chris's uncle. This confirmation always greeted with admiring respect for such a masterful family coup.

Chris has retired after his final assignment as US Ambassador to Iraq and takes up a new role as Dean of the Josef Kurbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. The school is named after Madeleine Albright's father who founded the school in 1964.

We wish Chris, Pattie and the family all success and happiness.

*

JUST CLICK THE FIGHTER FOR WORLD NEWS ONE - INTELLIGENCE AND DIPLOMACY

WORLD NEWS TWO - BRITAIN'S FORCES NEED MORE IMAGINATION, CASH, PEOPLE, SHIPS, AIRCRAFT AND MOBILITY

WORLD NEWS THREE - NAVAL AIR POWER

WORLD NEWS FOUR - DESTROYERS AND FRIGATES

WORLD NEWS FIVE - REFORM OF THE BRITISH ARMY

WORLD NEWS SIX - CHINA AND KOREA

*******

OUR NORMANDY D DAY AIR & LAND TOURS

Anyone taking our Normandy sky tour finds it helpful to have an idea of the scale of Operation Overlord and our briefing pages are worth a glance to understand some of the events before America's entry into the Second World War. Many visitors to our website probably know much of what is explained on these pages. Please grant us your forbearance. We try to ensure that those less familiar with the background to D Day, particularly the young, start their tour with a sound conception of what was at stake thereby making their time with us all the more worthwhile and enjoyable.

Just click the Spitfire...

OUR VIRTUAL D DAY TOUR HAS LOTS OF PHOTOS OF THE LEGENDARY SITES TODAY

SEE ALSO

                     OUR SKY GUIDES          STOP PRESS          OUR TOURS PAGE